netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH V4 02/13] netback: add module unload function.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 02 Feb 2012 21:34:26 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
Cc:	"Wei Liu (Intern)" <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	"konrad.wilk@...cle.com" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V4 02/13] netback: add module unload function.

Le jeudi 02 février 2012 à 19:59 +0000, Ian Campbell a écrit :
> On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 17:48 +0000, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Le jeudi 02 février 2012 à 17:28 +0000, Wei Liu a écrit :
> > 
> > > You're right about this.
> > > 
> > > But this part is destined to get wiped out (in the very near future?) --
> > > see following patches. So I don't think it is worthy to fix this.
> > > 
> > 
> > Before adding new bugs, you must fix previous ones.
> 
> I've never heard of this requirement before! It's a wonder anyone ever
> gets anything done.
> 
> Anyway, I think it would be reasonable to just remove the kthread_bind
> call from this loop. We don't actually want/need a thread per online CPU
> in any strict sense, we just want there to be some number of worker
> threads available and ~numcpus at start of day is a good enough
> approximation for that number. There have been patches floating around
> in the past which make the number of groups a module parameter which
> would also be a reasonable thing to dig out if we weren't just about to
> remove all this code anyway.
> 
> So removing the kthread_bind is good enough for the short term, and for
> stable if people feel that is necessary, and we can continue in mainline
> with the direction Wei's patches are taking us.
> 

That sounds a right fix.

Why do think its not reasonable that I ask a bug fix ?

Next time, dont bother send patches for review if you dont want
reviewers.




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html